|
=== KindTwo is now known as KindOne |
|
[05:23] <mborzecki> morning |
|
[06:17] <mborzecki> mvo: hey |
|
[06:21] <mvo> hey mborzecki |
|
[06:24] <mborzecki> mvo: can you take a look at https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8686 ? |
|
[06:24] <mup> PR #8686: o/devicestate: cleanup system actions supported by recover mode <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8686> |
|
[06:24] <mvo> mborzecki: sure |
|
[06:28] <mborzecki> mvo: thanks! |
|
[06:30] <mup> PR snapd#8686 closed: o/devicestate: cleanup system actions supported by recover mode <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8686> |
|
[06:30] <mborzecki> yay |
|
[07:00] <pstolowski> morning |
|
[07:01] <pedronis> zyga: hi, could you complete the comment #8123? is the only thing stopping it from landing |
|
[07:01] <mup> PR #8123: interfaces/network-control: bring /var/lib/dhcp from host (approach b) <Bug> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8123> |
|
[07:01] <zyga> Good morning |
|
[07:01] <zyga> pedronis: certainly, in a moment |
|
=== pedronis_ is now known as pedronis |
|
[07:10] <pedronis> mvo: should we land #8682 and change the pattern after? or do you prefer it changed first? |
|
[07:10] <mup> PR #8682: tests: port interfaces-password-manager-service to session-tool <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8682> |
|
[07:11] <zyga> Smak conflict there, lets resolve it |
|
[07:14] <mvo> pedronis: either way is fine |
|
[07:14] <mvo> pedronis: let's land as it will make tests better |
|
[07:14] <mvo> landed |
|
[07:15] <mup> PR snapd#8682 closed: tests: port interfaces-password-manager-service to session-tool <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8682> |
|
[07:16] <pedronis> anyway there's the other one that needs some tweaks |
|
[07:16] <pedronis> still |
|
[07:27] <pedronis> mborzecki: hi, I re-reviewed #8689 |
|
[07:27] <mup> PR #8689: o/devicestate: raise conflict when requesting system action while seeding <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8689> |
|
[07:27] <mborzecki> pedronis: thanks, i'm merging master and will address those in the next batch of patches |
|
[07:33] <pedronis> mborzecki: zyga: the fedora failure here is interesting: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8692 |
|
[07:33] <mvo> I will push a new test-snapd-with-configure{,-core18} to edge, should not affect anyting but if you notice anything strange please let me know and I can revert |
|
[07:33] <mup> PR #8692: configcore: add nomanagers buildtag for conditional build <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8692> |
|
[07:34] <zyga> looking |
|
[07:34] <pedronis> mborzecki: zyga: the cleanup is confusing snap.rootfs_* for a snap |
|
[07:34] <pedronis> a bit unclear why there's one around but never the less |
|
[07:44] <zyga> hmmm |
|
[07:44] <zyga> the snap.rootfs_ pattern is unusual to persist |
|
[07:44] <zyga> something has failed earlier and left it there |
|
[07:44] <mborzecki> btw. https://github.com/actions/cache/issues/208 is fixed |
|
[07:45] <mborzecki> mvo: ^^ |
|
[07:45] <zyga> oooo |
|
[07:45] <zyga> good :) |
|
[07:45] <mborzecki> we should be able to revive the issue with caches |
|
[07:45] <mborzecki> s/issue/PR/ |
|
[07:45] <zyga> 2020-05-20T06:18:51.4079959Z `-/tmp/snap.rootfs_9l42OX /dev/sda1[/tmp/snap.rootfs_9l42OX] ext4 rw,relatime,seclabel shared |
|
[07:45] <mvo> mborzecki: holly cow |
|
[07:45] <mvo> mborzecki: let me update my PR |
|
[07:47] <zyga> yeah, this is curious |
|
[07:49] <zyga> I can only say this |
|
[07:50] <zyga> at some point snap-confine -> snap-* startup sequence failed |
|
[07:50] <zyga> this is the only possibility of a leftover /tmp/snap.rootfs_ mount point |
|
[07:50] <zyga> I have two simple ideas: we can add an invariant check to detect those and fail early |
|
[07:50] <zyga> probably a good idea in general |
|
[07:51] <pedronis> pstolowski: mvo: I think #8692 can be either force merged or it needs another run |
|
[07:51] <zyga> and we can also change the temporary directory name to contain the snap name |
|
[07:51] <mup> PR #8692: configcore: add nomanagers buildtag for conditional build <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8692> |
|
[07:51] <zyga> but probably not so useful because we use test-snapd-sh a lot so it may be less revealing than a failure at a specific test |
|
[07:52] <zyga> I'll finish with conflicts and then look at this |
|
[07:52] <mvo> pedronis: I can force merge, let me look at the failures |
|
[07:54] <mup> PR snapd#8692 closed: configcore: add nomanagers buildtag for conditional build <Created by stolowski> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8692> |
|
[07:56] <pstolowski> mvo: thanks |
|
[07:56] <zyga> for the first time I resolved a mount-ns test conflict manually |
|
[07:57] <pedronis> pstolowski: there are some comments in #8697 |
|
[07:57] <mup> PR #8697: [RFC] packaging: build cmd/snap with nomanagers tag <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8697> |
|
[07:58] <pstolowski> pedronis: yes, i've been adressing them (almost done), except for your last comment |
|
[08:00] <mvo> I resurrected 8508 let's see how that goes |
|
[08:01] <pedronis> pstolowski: thx |
|
[08:03] <mup> PR snapd#8631 closed: image,cmd/snap,tests: add support for store-wide cohort keys <Created by xnox> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8631> |
|
[08:25] <zyga> hmmm |
|
[08:25] <zyga> mup: ping |
|
[08:25] <mup> zyga: Roses are red, violets are blue, and I don't understand what you just said. |
|
[08:25] <zyga> so mup responds |
|
[08:25] <zyga> is github down? |
|
[08:26] <zyga> no... |
|
[08:26] <zyga> weird |
|
[08:26] <zyga> I cannot git-push |
|
[08:28] <zyga> dns works |
|
[08:28] <zyga> wth? |
|
[08:28] <zyga> mborzecki: can you git push anything to gh? |
|
[08:29] <zyga> or maybe even git fetch |
|
[08:29] <mborzecki> zyga: yup, but had some problems fetching/pushing yesterday afternoon too |
|
[08:29] <zyga> I cannot add comments either |
|
[08:30] * zyga reboots |
|
[08:32] <zyga> rebooted |
|
[08:32] <zyga> git push hangs |
|
[08:32] <zyga> ssh hangs on |
|
[08:32] <zyga> debug1: Connecting to github.com [140.82.118.4] port 22. |
|
[08:33] <zyga> what does github.com resolve on your machine mborzecki ? |
|
[08:33] <mborzecki> zyga: 140.82.114.3 atm |
|
[08:33] <zyga> hmmm |
|
[08:33] <zyga> same result |
|
[08:33] <zyga> sigh |
|
[08:33] <zyga> what a morning |
|
[08:35] <mup> PR snapd#8702 opened: overlord/configstate: add log-control option <Created by EthanHsieh> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8702> |
|
[08:42] <zyga> gah |
|
[08:42] <zyga> any ideas |
|
[08:50] <zyga> it works :) |
|
[08:52] <mvo> zyga: 8578 looks ready - does it need jdstrand first or can I merge? |
|
[08:52] <zyga> checking |
|
[08:52] <mvo> zyga: hrm, I guess it does need him? |
|
[08:52] <zyga> yeah, I think he wanted to see it |
|
[09:06] <pedronis> mvo: should we turn all the ubuntu-20.04-* in our tests task.yaml to ubuntu-2* ? |
|
[09:11] <zyga> brb |
|
[09:16] <mvo> pedronis: I think so |
|
[09:16] <mvo> pedronis: not sure if zyga replied to my suggestion yet, I don't see a downside |
|
[09:16] <mvo> (but maybe I'm missing something?) |
|
[09:16] <zyga> mmm, mvo the one on tests to use 2* |
|
[09:17] <zyga> I didn't but I think it's a good idea |
|
[09:17] <mvo> zyga: cool, then we are in agreement |
|
[09:17] <zyga> but perhaps as a separate pass to do everything in one go |
|
[09:17] <mvo> sure |
|
[09:22] <mborzecki> pedronis: i've updated https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8689 also with some additional checks for non-uc20 |
|
[09:22] <mup> PR #8689: o/devicestate: raise conflict when requesting system action while seeding <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8689> |
|
[09:23] <mborzecki> pedronis: i suppose it's ok to assume that there's no explicit system mode in non-uc20 |
|
[09:26] <pedronis> mborzecki: various methods will say we are in run mode? |
|
[09:27] <pedronis> zyga: mvo: yes, as a separate pass, there's a bunch, also there are core20 nested tests that I think really want 20.04 precisely |
|
[09:27] <zyga> pedronis: mmm, indeed, I think a simple guideline is that if a test is precise and targets one thing it can stay that way, if it targets subsequent LTSes we can expand that to include 2* |
|
[09:37] <mborzecki> pedronis: it's in the contxt of system requests on uc16/18, we don't support that and might as well error out early in such case |
|
[09:37] <pedronis> mborzecki: yes, I'm actually looking at that code |
|
[09:37] <pedronis> we don't do that anywhere else |
|
[09:37] <pedronis> I'm not sure it's a good check |
|
[09:38] <pedronis> mborzecki: which reminds me that the code should use m.SystemMode() and not systemMode much more |
|
[09:38] <mborzecki> pedronis: it will be blocked later on anyway, so it's ok to drop that |
|
[09:40] <pedronis> or maybe we should change things to just set systemMode to run |
|
[09:40] <pedronis> and make SystemMode a straight accessor |
|
[09:41] <mborzecki> pedronis: yes, it's a bit confusing, otoh knowing when it's != "" gives us a little more insight as it's set only based on modeenv |
|
[09:42] <pedronis> yes, what something has to give, either we refuse to operate on modeenv without mode |
|
[09:42] <pedronis> early |
|
[09:42] <pedronis> or something |
|
[09:42] <pedronis> right is all a bit not well defined |
|
[09:45] <pedronis> mborzecki: we never write modeenvs without mode, right? |
|
[09:46] <mborzecki> pedronis: i don't think we do, but looking at the modeenv code there's no sanity check for Mode != "" |
|
[09:47] <mborzecki> and tests seem to disagree now that i added such check, heh |
|
[09:49] <mborzecki> fortunately it's just the test mocks |
|
[09:51] <pedronis> mborzecki: yea, I think we want the read in boot to fail if no mode |
|
[09:51] <pedronis> an deal with it |
|
[09:51] <pedronis> mborzecki: can be a follow up |
|
[09:59] <pedronis> mvo: thanks for the new test, I added some comments in #8351, I see the newline issue only in the full diff view |
|
[09:59] <mup> PR #8351: config: apply vitality-hint immediately when the config changes <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8351> |
|
[10:01] <mvo> pedronis: aha, thanks! I misread your comment about the gadget service, I will add that too |
|
[10:09] <pedronis> #8689 needs 2nd reviews |
|
[10:09] <mup> PR #8689: o/devicestate: raise conflict when requesting system action while seeding <UC20> <Created by bboozzoo> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8689> |
|
[10:20] <pedronis> mborzecki: #8661 is unblocked now, can you do another pass? (I will look myself but later) |
|
[10:20] <mup> PR #8661: configcore: add "service.console-conf.disable" config option <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8661> |
|
=== ergiusenss is now known as sergiusens |
|
[10:45] <mup> PR snapd#8703 opened: tests: detect signs of crashed snap-confine <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8703> |
|
[11:05] <mup> PR snapd#8123 closed: interfaces/network-control: bring /var/lib/dhcp from host (approach b) <Bug> <Created by zyga> <Merged by pedronis> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8123> |
|
[11:20] <mup> PR snapcraft#3132 closed: go v1 plugin: warn when using go.mod and go < 1.13 <bug> <Created by sergiusens> <Closed by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3132> |
|
[11:44] <mup> PR snapcraft#3133 opened: go v1 plugin: go.mod support for 1.11 and 1.12 <bug> <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3133> |
|
[11:49] <zyga> pedronis: thanks for merging |
|
=== alan_g is now known as alan_g_ |
|
[12:11] <cmatsuoka> cachio: I pushed a fix for PR 8700 but we need to check with zyga if the latest spread is in use |
|
[12:11] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[12:11] <zyga> cmatsuoka: thanks, I'll check that now |
|
[12:11] <cachio> cmatsuoka, checking |
|
[12:13] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I see the test is failing with |
|
[12:13] <cachio> panic: cannot seal the encryption key: cannot seal and store encryption key: cannot add EFI secure boot policy profile: cannot compute secure boot policy digests: the current boot was performed with secure boot disabled in firmware |
|
[12:13] <zyga> updating spread |
|
[12:13] <cmatsuoka> cachio: yes, it should work after zyga updates spread |
|
[12:14] <pedronis> cmatsuoka: that's an example of the errors that we need to think now to imrpove |
|
[12:14] <pedronis> *how |
|
[12:14] <zyga> our our defense it's much better than random errors from software |
|
[12:15] <zyga> but we do need to think about how to make a pattern for such errors that is easier to understand |
|
[12:15] <pedronis> yes, at least in this one most levels add some info (except the first two that feals redundant) |
|
[12:15] <pedronis> the one I saw the other day was worse |
|
[12:16] <zyga> that's true |
|
[12:16] <zyga> at least it's not a backtrace :) |
|
[12:16] <cmatsuoka> pedronis: in this case the first three are ours and we can clean them up, I'll check that |
|
[12:16] <pedronis> cmatsuoka: ah, interesting |
|
[12:25] <mup> PR snapd#8704 opened: cmd/snap-preseed: improve mountpoint checks of the preseeded chroot (1/2) <Created by stolowski> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8704> |
|
[12:27] <cmatsuoka> pedronis: the tpm-sealing-in-secboot PR already gets rid of the second level |
|
[12:33] <zyga> cmatsuoka: done |
|
[12:33] <cmatsuoka> zyga: thanks! |
|
[12:34] <cmatsuoka> I restarted the tests, let's see what happens... |
|
[12:38] <cmatsuoka> zyga: I was playing with the pi4 here, and interestingly it keeps the cpu frequency at the maximum value even idle and with the ondemand governor |
|
[12:38] <zyga> cmatsuoka: on ubuntu or raspbian? |
|
[12:38] <cmatsuoka> changing it to conservative made it drop the frequency |
|
[12:38] <cmatsuoka> it's the current core20 beta |
|
[12:38] <zyga> I see |
|
[12:39] <zyga> feels like a bug |
|
[12:39] <zyga> how do I check the freq? |
|
[12:39] <zyga> I can check core18 on mine |
|
[12:39] <cmatsuoka> zyga: yes, please do, I'll check classic too |
|
[12:40] <cmatsuoka> hmm, interesting, switching back to ondemand now keeps the freq low |
|
[12:41] <zyga> not sure if that's the right measurement |
|
[12:41] <zyga> zyga@pi4-1:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0$ sudo cat cpuinfo_cur_freq |
|
[12:41] <zyga> 1500000 |
|
[12:41] <cmatsuoka> root@ubuntu:/home/cmatsuoka# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/cpuinfo_cur_freq |
|
[12:41] <cmatsuoka> 600000 |
|
[12:42] <zyga> I'm on "ondemand" |
|
[12:42] <zyga> perhaps a kernel bug? |
|
[12:42] <cmatsuoka> try to switch to powersave and go back to ondemand |
|
[12:43] <zyga> cmatsuoka: raspbian on a pi0w has the same behavior |
|
[12:43] <zyga> 1GHz |
|
[12:43] <cmatsuoka> humm interesting |
|
[12:43] <zyga> I don't have another pi4 to confirm raspbian semantics there |
|
[12:43] <zyga> I have a large heatsink with two fans so it's not a problem |
|
[12:43] <zyga> but perhaps it does save some power |
|
[12:44] <zyga> I could connect it to my power supply and measure later if you are interested |
|
=== KindTwo is now known as KindOne |
|
[12:45] <cmatsuoka> I'm using a small heatsink with no fans so it tends to heat up a little bit |
|
[12:46] <cmatsuoka> zyga: yeah, measuring could be interesting -- at least we'll know how well cpufreq works power-wise |
|
[12:46] <zyga> cmatsuoka: I need to look how to do that, I have a hacked micro cable but not a hacked usb-c cable |
|
=== techalchemy_ is now known as techalchemy |
|
[13:25] <zyga> stgraber: I think lxc file push needs confuses --mode |
|
[13:25] <zyga> an octal input is doing funny thing |
|
[13:28] <zyga> jdstrand: some low hanging fruit: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8578 |
|
[13:28] <mup> PR #8578: interfaces: add system-packages-doc interface <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8578> |
|
[13:29] <jdstrand> zyga: yes, I'm pivoting to PR reviews later today once I finish the store reviews which are almost done |
|
[13:29] <zyga> super, thank you :) |
|
[13:29] <zyga> it's not urgent |
|
[13:29] <zyga> just low-hanging |
|
[13:29] * jdstrand nods |
|
[13:37] <zyga> stgraber: s/needs// -- i meant to say that it seems it is confused by what --mode= is supposed to be, giving octal values does funny stuff |
|
[13:38] <court_jester> What's the difference between #snappy and #snapcraft? |
|
[13:39] <stgraber> zyga: with our without leading 0? |
|
[13:39] <zyga> without |
|
[13:39] <zyga> I think decimal mode is quite unusual so I didn't pass it |
|
[13:41] <zyga> court_jester: snappy is where most snapd developers talk |
|
[13:41] <ogra> court_jester, they kind of overlap ... but the fcus here is snapd development, Ubuntu Core development and such |
|
[13:41] <zyga> court_jester: snapcraft is where the snapcraft developer hang and where loads of people ask questions |
|
[13:41] <ogra> while the snapcraft channel is for developing snapcraft but also of packaging etc |
|
[13:41] <zyga> snapd is the package manager, snapcraft is the package builder |
|
[13:42] <ogra> s/of/for/ |
|
[13:42] <zyga> mvo: should I drop the bitcacher now? |
|
[13:42] <ogra> take 8 of them and make it a bytecacher ;) |
|
[13:44] <mvo> zyga: yes please |
|
[13:44] <zyga> over the parallel port |
|
[13:44] <zyga> mvo: ack |
|
[13:45] <zyga> done |
|
[13:45] <mvo> ta |
|
[14:02] <zyga> gah |
|
[14:02] <zyga> I need to reboot again |
|
[14:02] <zyga> suspend during the standup nuked X input |
|
[14:04] <zyga> re |
|
[14:05] <zyga> cmatsuoka: https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=274595&sid=05bfd24c66e0458db63482ae20121427 |
|
[14:05] <zyga> ^ also a case for that eeprom update we talked about |
|
[14:05] <zyga> very tempted to buy a pi4 for testing this |
|
[14:05] <cmatsuoka> ah intersting |
|
[14:06] <zyga> pair pi4 with a SSD |
|
[14:06] <zyga> also case for ubuntu core *installer* that you use to write from sd to other storage |
|
[14:07] <zyga> I only wish pi4 firmware was open source |
|
[14:13] <pstolowski> short break, bbiab |
|
[14:13] * ogra recommends https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B078SVRH4B/ref=twister_B07XTSVFS4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 for the pi4 |
|
[14:13] <ogra> it flies with writable on the SSD (and system-boot on SD) |
|
[14:15] <cmatsuoka> nice! |
|
[14:15] <zyga> ogra: thanks! |
|
[14:15] <zyga> oh, and usb-c too |
|
[14:16] <zyga> I personally would prefer something that I can fuse into one big enclosure, so that it's not a tangled mess of wires |
|
[14:16] <zyga> but I think that's very hard with pi design |
|
[14:18] <ogra> well, you might find cases to print on thingverse |
|
[14:20] <zyga> yeah, that's true |
|
[14:21] <zyga> I wish WD kept making those pi-specific usb drives |
|
[14:21] <zyga> just updated to SSDs now |
|
[14:21] <zyga> I still have the original set and it is amazing, apart from being a hdd |
|
[14:21] <zyga> (and the notion of native USB-HDD is fuN) |
|
[14:23] <ogra> i wish the pi foundation would add an M.2 PCIe socket to the next pi4 interation :) |
|
[14:24] <ogra> that saves all case issues by simply mounting it to the board itself |
|
[14:24] <zyga> yeah |
|
[14:25] <zyga> with pi4 having pci-e anyway, I think it's doable |
|
[14:25] <zyga> and could be something to put on that bottom side :) |
|
[14:25] <ogra> i really love the nanopc-t4 for that ... but still having driver issues (it occasionally dies even with BSP kernel snap) |
|
[14:25] <ogra> (but if it doesnt die ... OMG it is fast !) |
|
[14:25] <ogra> :) |
|
[14:27] <cmatsuoka> "tangled mess of wires" is something I'm getting increasingly familiar with |
|
[14:27] <mvo> zyga: 2020-05-20T12:53:27.3457005Z invariant-tool: system is corrupted - in https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8703/checks?check_run_id=692478727 maybe that is helpful? |
|
[14:28] <mup> PR #8703: tests: detect signs of crashed snap-confine <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8703> |
|
[14:29] <zyga> mvo: yes! |
|
[14:29] <zyga> looking |
|
[14:29] <zyga> fantastic |
|
[14:29] <zyga> thank you |
|
[14:30] <zyga> I think it's a red herring here as old snap-confine did not clean some things up |
|
[14:30] <zyga> but it surely works |
|
[14:30] <zyga> and I wonder why it only failed here |
|
[14:30] <zyga> ah, that's the PR introducing it |
|
[14:30] <zyga> :D |
|
[14:30] <zyga> I'll adjust the test |
|
[14:30] <zyga> thanks |
|
=== benfrancis6 is now known as benfrancis |
|
[14:45] <cachio> cmatsuoka, https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/WQ7ZcDKmD5/ |
|
[14:45] <cachio> I see thie error now |
|
[14:45] <cachio> I'll try to update the fedora image |
|
[14:45] <cmatsuoka> this error is strange |
|
[14:46] <cmatsuoka> ah, I think you're trying to create the instance with shieldedInstanceConfig empty |
|
[14:47] <cmatsuoka> does it make sense? |
|
[14:50] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I am just sending the parameters list empty when secboot is not enabled |
|
[14:50] <cachio> as I do with all the systems |
|
[14:50] <zyga> hmm |
|
[14:50] <zyga> 2020-05-20 14:49:17 Cannot allocate google:amazon-linux-2-64: cannot allocate new Google server for amazon-linux-2-64: invalid value for field 'resource.shieldedInstanceConfig': ''. Shielded VM Config can only be set when using a UEFI-compatible disk |
|
[14:50] <zyga> I think the thing we did did not do the thing we hoped it does |
|
[14:50] <zyga> cmatsuoka: ^ |
|
[14:50] <zyga> does this indicate the spread patch is buggy |
|
[14:50] <cmatsuoka> cachio: and only fedora didn't like it? |
|
[14:51] <cachio> zyga, mmm, also amazon-linux |
|
[14:51] <zyga> this is from upstream spread now failing on our tests |
|
[14:51] <cachio> zyga, yes |
|
[14:51] <zyga> it feels like we need to revert something |
|
[14:51] <cachio> semms to be a gce thing |
|
[14:51] <zyga> I'll break for lunch and let you figure it out, I can happily deploy updated spread in minutes |
|
[14:51] <zyga> it seems the setting only works if the image is using UEFI |
|
[14:51] <zyga> which is sensible |
|
[14:51] <zyga> spread patch was not tested properly |
|
[14:52] <cachio> I know the simple fix for spread , but perhaps I can solve it from gce |
|
[14:52] <cachio> zyga, agree, I just validates that in some systems |
|
[14:55] <pstolowski> re |
|
[14:56] <zyga> cachio, cmatsuoka: please get a patch reviewed and ping me for deployment |
|
[14:57] <cmatsuoka> zyga: ack |
|
[14:57] <cachio> zyga, I'll update the images first |
|
[15:00] <cachio> zyga, I think the main problem is how we create the images, but seems to be also a problem in gce, because it doesn't like the configuration parameter even if it goes empty |
|
[15:00] <cachio> so for fedora we send the parameter empty and gce does not like the parameter |
|
[15:01] <cachio> I need to fix that on spread |
|
[15:01] <cachio> zyga, but first I'll update our images to support uefi configurations |
|
[15:01] <zyga> cachio: perhaps fixing spread is faster |
|
[15:01] <cachio> and that is a trivial change |
|
[15:01] <zyga> there's no telling what happens if we move to uefi boot |
|
[15:02] <zyga> maybe something else breaks |
|
[15:02] <cachio> zyga, we are not moving to uefi oot |
|
[15:02] <cmatsuoka> cachio: I changed your code a little bit and I'll run a test here |
|
[15:02] <zyga> so what does the image update entail? |
|
[15:03] <cachio> zyga, the change I am doing is telling to gce that the image now is compatible with uefi, but it does not mean we are going to use uefi |
|
[15:04] <cachio> zyga, will just allow us to send uefi parameters |
|
[15:04] <cachio> while the instance is created |
|
[15:04] <zyga> so are there two knobs in GCE: 1) uefi supported 2) really use uefi to boot? |
|
[15:04] <cachio> yes |
|
[15:04] <zyga> weird :) |
|
[15:04] <zyga> ok |
|
[15:04] <cachio> uefi suported you set when you create the image |
|
[15:05] <cachio> boot with uefi you set it when you start the image |
|
[15:05] <cachio> so you can choose |
|
[15:05] <cachio> either if you want to boot with uefi or not |
|
[15:05] <cachio> the same image |
|
[15:06] <cachio> lets make a try with this change, and then make the update in spread |
|
[15:11] <zyga> sounds good |
|
[15:13] <zyga> brb |
|
[15:14] <zyga> mborzecki: I'll update opensuse today |
|
[15:14] <zyga> mborzecki: maybe next week we could chat about suse security's group idea |
|
[15:19] <cachio> zyga, fedora 31 is updated and now boots well |
|
[15:19] <cachio> I'll run the entire suite to validate there is not side efect |
|
[15:20] <cachio> zyga, udpating amazon linux now |
|
[15:42] <zyga> ta |
|
[15:44] <cmatsuoka> cachio: wdyt about something like https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/vtNg3Nx5Gk/ ? |
|
[15:45] <mvo> mborzecki: probably for tomorrow 8508 is ready but sadly all spread tests worked so we can't test the re-run in a meaningful way |
|
[15:45] <mvo> mborzecki: still ready for review |
|
[15:45] <cmatsuoka> cachio: it also addresses some of gustavos comments on your original patch |
|
[15:47] <mup> Issue core18#153 opened: missing /etc/cloud/cloud.cfg.d/99-snappy-azure.cfg <Created by anonymouse64> <https://github.com/snapcore/core18/issue/153> |
|
[15:48] * zyga break to rest from standing |
|
[15:49] <zyga> more more more tests coming after |
|
[15:52] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I'll check it |
|
[15:52] <cachio> in the mean time I already updated fedora and amazon linux images |
|
[15:52] <cachio> so those are now working again |
|
[15:54] <cmatsuoka> cachio: it's important to fix spread as well, I suppose we're not the only users |
|
[15:54] <cachio> cmatsuoka, we I update the images that all use |
|
[15:55] <cachio> cmatsuoka, but the spread fix is also important |
|
[15:55] <cachio> cmatsuoka, are you creating a PR with that? |
|
[15:56] <cmatsuoka> I could, than perhaps you could run some tests on it? |
|
[15:56] <cachio> zyga, cmatsuoka as retrospective I think we need to be able to run some tests to validate the google backend |
|
[15:57] <cachio> cmatsuoka, ok, let me test it |
|
[15:57] <cmatsuoka> s/than/then/ |
|
[15:59] <cachio> cmatsuoka, in the PR 8700 just failing the ubuntu-secboot system |
|
[15:59] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[15:59] <cachio> cmatsuoka, do you know how to fix it? |
|
[15:59] <cmatsuoka> cachio: is it the secure boot disabled bug? in this case I think we're running the old spread there |
|
[16:00] <cachio> cmatsuoka, well, we can run the new spread now |
|
[16:01] <cachio> zyga, is it possible to use the new spread there? |
|
[16:01] <zyga> where? |
|
[16:01] <cachio> in the pr 8700 |
|
[16:02] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[16:02] <zyga> cachio: ? |
|
[16:02] <cachio> zyga are we using the old spread there? |
|
[16:02] <zyga> cachio: spread is not specific to a PR |
|
[16:02] <zyga> cachio: I don't understand your question |
|
[16:02] <zyga> cachio: since we don't print spread version anywhere it's hard to guess |
|
[16:02] <cachio> zyga, I misunderstood what claudio said I think |
|
[16:03] <zyga> cachio: but I've updated spread across all the runners during the standup call |
|
[16:03] <cachio> zyga, we are using the last spread right? |
|
[16:03] <zyga> cachio: master |
|
[16:03] <cmatsuoka> it's interesting, because 8700 fails with the "current boot was performed with secure boot disabled in firmware" error |
|
[16:03] <cachio> zyga, perfect |
|
[16:03] <cachio> cmatsuoka, yes |
|
[16:03] <zyga> when did it fail, was it after the standup? |
|
[16:03] <cachio> not sure why but I debugged that test and secure boot is enabled |
|
[16:04] <cmatsuoka> zyga: I restarted the tests after the standup, yes |
|
[16:05] <zyga> hmmm |
|
[16:05] <zyga> one sec |
|
[16:05] <zyga> drat, my fault |
|
[16:05] <zyga> sorry, updating on nodes other than 1 |
|
[16:05] <cachio> zyga, nice |
|
[16:06] <cachio> thanks |
|
[16:06] <cachio> zyga, I need to see if another image needs to be updated |
|
[16:06] <zyga> cachio: please restart them again |
|
[16:07] <cmatsuoka> restarted |
|
[16:11] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I already did it |
|
[16:11] <cachio> but for everything |
|
[16:11] <cachio> I need to see if any systems needs to be updated |
|
[16:12] <zyga> cachio: can you update leap / tw as well please |
|
[16:12] <zyga> maybe you did earlier |
|
[16:13] <cachio> I'll need to update some other images as well |
|
[16:15] <zyga> ok |
|
[16:23] <kyrofa> Does https://snapcraft.io/build build a new snap for pushes on ANY branch? Or only the default? |
|
[16:23] <diddledan> only the default IIRC |
|
[16:25] <kyrofa> Oh, that's unfortunate |
|
[16:25] <kyrofa> roadmr, can you confirm? |
|
[16:30] <ijohnson> mvo: reviewed 8661, it has 2 +1's now |
|
[16:32] <pedronis> ti doesn't need my review I think, but maybe Pawel should give it a quick look |
|
[16:35] <mvo> ijohnson: I merged your suggestion too, thanks for this |
|
[16:35] <cjwatson> kyrofa: it's a web team thing |
|
[16:35] <cjwatson> rather than store team |
|
[16:37] <kyrofa> cjwatson, ah, I was wondering if I might end up addressing that question to you |
|
[16:37] <cjwatson> I stopped working on this a year or two ago - definitely owned by the web team now :) |
|
[16:37] <cjwatson> (I was involved in getting the thing up and running, but not long-term) |
|
[16:38] <kyrofa> I don't actually know who that is these days, can you point me in the right direction? |
|
[16:38] <pedronis> time is hard our gdoc thinks monday was the 17 |
|
[16:38] <diddledan> pedronis, well to be fair time is an illusion since we went into lockdown ;-p |
|
[16:38] <cjwatson> kyrofa: https://github.com/canonical-web-and-design/snapcraft.io/issues probably |
|
[16:38] <cjwatson> (I don't have names for you) |
|
[16:39] <kyrofa> Ah, someone there should probably idle here |
|
[16:39] <diddledan> yeah it'ld be a good idea for someone who maintains the build service to idle around here for questions |
|
[16:40] <diddledan> or in #snapcraft.. I still haven't worked out how to determine which channel I should be talking in ;-p |
|
[16:40] <kyrofa> Lukewh, any chance you know everything there is to know about https://snapcraft.io/build? |
|
[16:40] <ijohnson> pedronis: I think most of those issues are my fault tbh since I'm usually the one to add the new day in the gdoc haha |
|
[16:42] <pedronis> ijohnson: it's not a serious problem but I was confused for a bit |
|
[16:42] <zyga> cachio: can you please ping me when all images are up-to-date |
|
[16:42] <ijohnson> yeah I was quite confused myself when I realized we are not actually in june yet |
|
[16:42] <cachio> zyga, all of them are updated |
|
[16:43] <zyga> cachio: ah, excellent |
|
[16:43] <zyga> cachio: I'll restart a few PRs to see what we get |
|
[16:43] <cachio> I just retriggered the tests on that PR |
|
[16:43] <zyga> thanks! |
|
[16:43] <Lukewh> kyrofa: please file an issue. I need to verify the flow and I'm EODing so it'll remind me to check tomorrow :) |
|
[16:44] <cachio> I already run a test in all the ysstems to validate it |
|
[16:44] <kyrofa> Lukewh, will do |
|
[16:44] <Lukewh> kyrofa: thanks. make sure you say what you'd like to happen and we can see if we can do it |
|
[16:47] <zyga> mvo: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8508#pullrequestreview-415527869 |
|
[16:47] <mup> PR #8508: github: run all spread systems in a single go with cached results <Created by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8508> |
|
[16:51] <zyga> mvo: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8681#discussion_r428163052 |
|
[16:51] <mup> PR #8681: tests: port interfaces-accounts-service to session-tool <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8681> |
|
[16:52] <zyga> and I'll send a follow up to update tests to cover 2* |
|
[16:54] <mvo> zyga: thanks, merged |
|
[16:54] <zyga> thanks! |
|
[16:55] <mup> PR snapd#8681 closed: tests: port interfaces-accounts-service to session-tool <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <Merged by mvo5> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8681> |
|
[16:55] <zyga> mvo: if you have a moment today, pushing forward that caching PR would be great |
|
[16:55] <cachio> zyga, now I see this error |
|
[16:55] <cachio> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/F3Vgw6bp4V/ |
|
[16:55] <zyga> cachio: looking |
|
[16:55] <cachio> this image didn't change |
|
[16:55] <zyga> cachio: heh |
|
[16:55] <zyga> cachio: /dev/sda1 9983268 4923644 5043240 50% / |
|
[16:55] <zyga> but |
|
[16:55] <zyga> /dev/mapper/loop2p3 380872 372800 0 100% /mnt |
|
[16:55] <zyga> this is full |
|
[16:56] <cachio> yes |
|
[16:56] <cachio> it happens after I merged with master |
|
[16:56] <zyga> what do we mount at /mnt? |
|
[16:56] <cachio> did yo usee that in another pr? |
|
[16:56] <zyga> no |
|
[16:57] <zyga> I said "heh" because it seems that today everything breaks a little |
|
[16:57] <cachio> zyga, ok I'll research in that case |
|
[16:57] <zyga> it seems like the reflash magic |
|
[16:57] <cachio> yes |
|
[16:57] <zyga> note that ubuntu-core-16-64 uses an explicit image name |
|
[16:57] <cachio> yes |
|
[16:57] <zyga> maybe the implicit name we get for ubuntu-16.04-64 is different? |
|
[16:58] <cachio> but that image didnt receive any change |
|
[16:58] <zyga> check what we mount and what determines the size |
|
[16:58] <cachio> zyga, yes |
|
[16:58] <zyga> btw |
|
[16:58] <zyga> the exclude patterns look wrong |
|
[16:59] <zyga> we don't use /gopath, do we? we moved to /home/gopath |
|
[16:59] <zyga> so those are probably copying build noise |
|
[16:59] <zyga> anyway, 7PM |
|
[16:59] * zyga EODS |
|
[16:59] <zyga> o/ |
|
[17:00] <cachio> zyga, enjoy, lets continue tomorrow |
|
[17:00] <cachio> see you |
|
=== ijohnson is now known as ijohnson|lunch |
|
[17:24] <pedronis> mmh, 8681 needed a tweak before merging |
|
[17:31] <zyga> pedronis: what kind, I can send a patch quickly |
|
[17:31] <pedronis> zyga: it was in my comments there |
|
[17:31] <zyga> (back in the office for some stuff) |
|
[17:31] <zyga> looking |
|
[17:32] <pedronis> the autoremove will not remove the thin we installed manually |
|
[17:32] <zyga> I see it |
|
[17:32] <zyga> thanks, I'll fix that in a moment |
|
[17:32] <pedronis> we need to first remove it and then autoremove the rest |
|
[17:32] <pedronis> zyga: thx |
|
[17:35] <zyga> pedronis: https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8705 |
|
[17:35] * zyga back to afk |
|
[17:35] <pedronis> thx |
|
[17:35] <mup> PR #8705: tests: remove gnome-online-accounts we install <Simple ๐> <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8705> |
|
[17:35] <mup> PR snapd#8705 opened: tests: remove gnome-online-accounts we install <Simple ๐> <Test Robustness> <Created by zyga> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8705> |
|
=== ijohnson|lunch is now known as ijohnson |
|
[18:42] <mup> PR snapcraft#3133 closed: go v1 plugin: go.mod support for 1.11 and 1.12 <bug> <Created by sergiusens> <Merged by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3133> |
|
[18:53] <cmatsuoka> cachio: https://github.com/snapcore/spread/pull/105 is my attempt to solve the issue |
|
[18:54] <mup> PR spread#105: google: only configure shielded instance when secure boot is enabled <Created by cmatsuoka> <https://github.com/snapcore/spread/pull/105> |
|
[18:54] <cmatsuoka> cachio: it also changes secureboot: to secure-boot: so PR 8700 will have to be changed accordingly |
|
[18:54] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[18:56] <cachio> cmatsuoka, yes, but once this pr is merged into spread |
|
[18:56] <cmatsuoka> yes |
|
[18:56] <cmatsuoka> or when zyga makes this version available to snapd, I don't know how our private deployments work |
|
[18:58] <cachio> cmatsuoka, didn't work |
|
[18:58] <cachio> same issue I see |
|
[18:59] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I need to go to the doctor now, I'll fix it and test it and push |
|
[18:59] <cachio> once I am back |
|
[18:59] <cmatsuoka> cachio: oh really? I tested it here with create-partitions-encrypted and it worked (with secureboot changed to secure-boot in spread.yaml) |
|
[18:59] <cmatsuoka> ok |
|
[19:00] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I tested to run a test with not secboot |
|
[19:00] <cachio> and it fails with the same error |
|
[19:00] <cachio> https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/c7NQcNQmfB/ |
|
[19:01] <cachio> cmatsuoka, I'll run again when I am back |
|
[19:01] <cachio> in 1 hour |
|
[19:01] <cmatsuoka> ok, I'll test with fedora in the meantime |
|
[19:01] * cachio afk |
|
[19:02] <cachio> remember all the images support uefi now |
|
[19:03] <cachio> so it will work :) |
|
[19:03] <cachio> cmatsuoka, you can try with the image fedora-31-64-base |
|
[19:03] <cmatsuoka> ok! |
|
[19:04] <zyga> cmatsuoka: I can do it now |
|
[19:04] * zyga waves from the garden |
|
[19:05] <zyga> cmatsuoka: is spread master updated? |
|
[19:42] <mup> PR snapcraft#3134 opened: cli: nicer message for status with no releases <Created by sergiusens> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft/pull/3134> |
|
[20:03] <cmatsuoka> cachio: I got this with fedora-31-64: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/c5t9RdzBqv/ |
|
[20:21] <zyga> cmatsuoka: o/ |
|
[20:21] <zyga> 020-05-20 16:24:43 Project content is packed for delivery (176.12MB). <- ?? |
|
[20:21] <zyga> that's a lot |
|
[20:22] <cmatsuoka> zyga: indeed, maybe there's something that shouldn't be there |
|
[20:22] * cmatsuoka checks |
|
[20:23] <zyga> do you need me to do anything with spread? |
|
[20:23] <cmatsuoka> zyga: I'm waiting for sergio to validate my fixes, it works in my tests but it seems that it failed for him in an unexpected way |
|
[20:24] <cmatsuoka> and yes, there was a compressed image in the spread-image directory |
|
[20:24] <cmatsuoka> I mean, a compressed core image |
|
[20:24] <zyga> cmatsuoka: maybe a candidate to spread exclude |
|
[20:25] <cmatsuoka> I really don't know why it was there |
|
[20:25] <cmatsuoka> probably a leftover from a previous test |
|
[20:37] <mup> PR core20#60 closed: Copy-in launchpad's build-archive <Created by xnox> <Merged by xnox> <https://github.com/snapcore/core20/pull/60> |
|
[20:39] <mup> Issue core20#57 closed: "man" command should not suggest running unminimize <Created by anonymouse64> <Closed by xnox> <https://github.com/snapcore/core20/issue/57> |
|
[20:39] <mup> PR core20#59 closed: static: provide friendly message when "man" is used <Created by mvo5> <Merged by xnox> <https://github.com/snapcore/core20/pull/59> |
|
[21:02] <cachio> cmatsuoka, hey |
|
[21:03] <cachio> cmatsuoka, #8700 is in green now |
|
[21:03] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[21:03] <cachio> cmatsuoka, zyga left some comments there about the changes that you did to the test, could you please answer those? |
|
[21:04] <cmatsuoka> cachio: ack, also I'm wondering why PR 105 failed for you, I succesfully opened a shell in fedora-31-64 |
|
[21:04] <mup> PR #105: Track capability types <Created by zyga> <Merged by chipaca> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/105> |
|
[21:10] <cmatsuoka> cachio: answered the comments in the PR |
|
[21:12] <cmatsuoka> cachio: is there a non-uefi image I can use to test spread? |
|
[21:13] <cmatsuoka> cachio: I see you used fedora-32-64 in your test and I tested fedora-31-64, are those different to the point it could affect this test? |
|
[21:16] <cachio> cmatsuoka, you need to test fedora-31-64-base and fedora-31-64 |
|
[21:16] <cachio> cmatsuoka, the first does not support uefi |
|
[21:16] <cachio> the second it does |
|
[21:17] <cachio> cmatsuoka, in my case it failed with the images that don't support uefi |
|
[21:17] <cmatsuoka> ah ok, let me try the -base variant... |
|
[21:17] <cachio> the image you used it was updated by me :) |
|
[21:18] <cmatsuoka> Hmm, I think I tested -base already, I'll test both again to be sure |
|
[21:21] <zyga> cachio: is opensuse updated as well? |
|
[21:21] <zyga> cachio: I ran into some issues but perhaps that was from an earlier run |
|
[21:21] <cmatsuoka> cachio: so this is -base: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/4MrXX4nscd/ |
|
[21:22] <cmatsuoka> cachio: and this is the non-base: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/PnXFBpmrZk/ |
|
[21:26] <cachio> zyga, opensuse is updated |
|
[21:26] <cachio> 15.1 and tumbleweed |
|
[21:26] <zyga> ta, I'll get back to stuff tomorrow! |
|
[21:27] <cachio> cmatsuoka, nice, in that case I got an error |
|
[21:28] <cachio> zyga, ig #8700 ok for you? |
|
[21:28] <mup> PR #8700: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[21:29] <cachio> cmatsuoka, and for you? |
|
[21:29] <zyga> +1 |
|
[21:30] <cmatsuoka> cachio: 8700 works with the current spread, for PR-105 we'll need one more change (secureboot: to secure-boot:) |
|
[21:31] <cmatsuoka> but I'm still very intrigued with sergio's error with PR-105 |
|
[21:31] <cmatsuoka> cachio: could you check if the binary was built from the correct branch and try the test that failed again? |
|
[21:32] <cachio> cmatsuoka, ok, once spread works using secure-boot we update snapd accordingly |
|
[21:32] <cachio> does it make sense? |
|
[21:32] <cachio> cmatsuoka, checking the error |
|
[21:33] <cmatsuoka> cachio: yes, we must keep things consistent |
|
[21:33] <cachio> cmatsuoka, it is merged now |
|
[21:34] <cachio> so tomorrow we update snapd and zyga deployes the new spread |
|
[21:34] <zyga> do you need master or something else? |
|
[21:34] <cachio> zyga, we have on master the fix |
|
[21:34] <zyga> ah, excellent |
|
[21:35] <zyga> I will deploy that in the morning |
|
[21:35] <cachio> nice |
|
[21:35] <cachio> I'll create the change on snapd to address that, so tomorrow you can approve it once the deploy is done |
|
[21:37] <cachio> cmatsuoka, is it ok to merge 8700 now? |
|
[21:38] <cmatsuoka> cachio: if it's passing the tests it should be fine |
|
[21:39] <cmatsuoka> cachio: I just noticed here that neither fedora-31-64 nor fedora-31-64-base have /sys/firmware/efi |
|
[21:39] <cmatsuoka> cachio: is that expected? |
|
[21:39] <cachio> cmatsuoka, yes |
|
[21:40] <cachio> cmatsuoka, what I did it to configure gce to allow uefi |
|
[21:40] <cmatsuoka> ah, it's allowed but not necessarily used? |
|
[21:40] <cachio> cmatsuoka, yes |
|
[21:40] <cmatsuoka> ah cool, ok |
|
[21:41] <cachio> I need to specify that when I start the instance |
|
[21:41] <cmatsuoka> and why did it failed for you? |
|
[21:41] <cachio> and we are sending the configuration empry |
|
[21:41] <cachio> because the image was not set to use uefi |
|
[21:41] <cachio> so when we sent the configuration empty, then gce rejects the parameters |
|
[21:42] <cmatsuoka> so in PR-105 we're not sending it empty anymore |
|
[21:42] <cachio> even when the arrey is empty |
|
[21:42] <cmatsuoka> we don't send it if secure-boot is disabled |
|
[21:42] <cachio> cmatsuoka, exact |
|
[21:42] <cmatsuoka> so PR-105 should have worked for you |
|
[21:42] <cachio> perhaps I did something wrong |
|
[21:43] <cachio> I'll try again in 1 minutes |
|
[21:44] <mup> PR snapd#8700 closed: tests: fix the issue where all the tests were executed on secboot system <Created by sergiocazzolato> <Merged by sergiocazzolato> <https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/pull/8700> |
|
[21:44] <cmatsuoka> ah ok, no hurry, I'm just intrigued |
|
[21:58] <cachio> cmatsuoka, it works |
|
[21:58] <cmatsuoka> ah nice, thanks :) |
|
[21:58] <cachio> I think I made a mistake to build |
|
[21:59] <cachio> just verified |
|
[21:59] <cachio> zyga, dont use master yet, it is still no merged |
|
[21:59] <cachio> the change on spread |
|
|